PADMAVATHI Vs. E V SUBRAHMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are preferred as against the Judgments and decrees made in O. S. No. 1302/87 and O. S. No. 175/90 on the file of III additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, one filed for declaration of title and other reliefs inclusive of the relief of possession and yet another suit filed praying for the relief of specific performance of reconveyance in relation to the self-same property. Both the matters were disposed of by a Common Judgment. It appears on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction the Appeal as against the Judgment and decree in O. S. No. 175/90 was preferred to the I additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabab as o. S. No. 148/96 which was transferred to this Court and renumbered for the purpose of disposal with the other Appeal inasmuch as both arise out of Common Judgment.

(2.) It may not be out of context if it is referred to at the outset itself that in A. S. No. 148/96 aforesaid, I. A. No. 780/97 was filed by appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w. Sec. 151 C. P. C. for reception of additional evidence i. e. , reconveyance: agreement dated 21-8-1974 and the registered sale deed dated 21-8-1974 bearing document No. 1347/74. Several reasons had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the said application why these documents are essential for the purpose of effective adjudication of the matters in controversy. Along with the said application the affidavit of third party Sri K. Venkat Reddy s/o. Sri K. Krishna Reddy, Advocate also was filed who had sworn to an affidavit in relation to the documents which are being produced by way of additional evidence before the appellate court which no doubt had been transferred to this Court to be heard along with yet another Appeal C. C. C. A. No. 73/96.

(3.) The Counsel on record made submissions in elaboration putting forth their respective contentions on behalf of the respective parlies. Submissions of Sri Ramakrishna : Sri Rama Krishna, the learned counsel representing the appellants in both these Appeals pointed out that the learned trial Judge had totally erred in dismissing the suit for enforcement of reconveyance mainly on the ground that the said document was not produced before the Court. The learned Counsel also while further elaborating his submissions had explained the facts and circumstances under which the same could not be produced. The learned Counsel also had further explained different litigations concerned with the property and the respective stands taken by the respective parties and would contend that the very fact that the plaintiff in O. S. No. 1302/87 had taken a stand denying the very existence of reconveyance would definitely go to show that the stand taken by those parties is not correct stand since there is ample material available on record relating to the existence of reconveyance agreement whether the same had been produced before the Court or not. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the findings recorded by the trial Court while dealing with the question of limitation and would contend that the non-production of the reconveyance -agreement was made the main ground of attack and repeated findings had been recorded in this regard. In that view of the matter, inasmuch as the same is being produced in the interest of justice and also in the light of the explanation given both in the affidavit filed in support of the application and the third party affidavit of the Counsel, the application may have to be allowed. The learned Counsel also would submit that the very approach of the trial Court is erroneous since voluminous documentary evidence is available on record to show that an agreement relating to reconveyance of the self-same property and hence the rights of the parties under the said reconveyance unless if otherwise defeated the question of recovering possession by virtue ot ex. A-1 will not arise. The learned Counsel also in detail explained the several documents which would amply establish the existence of the reconveyance agreement and also had taken this Court through the said documents in detail. The learned Counsel had pointed out to exs. B-1, B-3, B-2, B-21, A-16, A-17, A-9, A-1 and also pointed out to the oral evidence available on record. The learned Counsel carefully had taken this Court through the contents of Ex. A-14 in detail. The Counsel also explained about certain prior litigations and pointed out to the relevant portions of the depositions and would contend that the evidence on record would clearly disclose that the plaintiff in O. S. No. 1302/87 is taking a false stand to have some unlawful gain in the light of the present appreciation of the value of the property. The Counsel also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Judge and placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his contentions. Submissions of Sri V. L. N. G. K. Murthy : Sri V. L. N. G. K. Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the plaintiff in O. S. No. 1302/87 in all fairness would submit that though the plaintiff R. K. Veni had taken the stand that no reconveyance agreement as such is in existence there is some material available on record relating to the existence of the reconveyance. The learned Counsel without admitting as such but however in alternative would contend that even assuming that such reconveyance agreement has been there, whether the same can be enforced. The learned Counsel would maintain that to enforce a reconveyance agreement time would be the essence of the contract. The relief itself being a discretionary relief a party who approaches the Court at the belated stage is not entitled to get such relief. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the pendency of the proceedings if any before the U. L. C. would be of no consequence and the same cannot save the limitation. The learned Counsel also in detail explained the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 and would maintain that the relief of soecifie prayed for in o. S. No. 175/90 cannot be granted at any stretch of imagination. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the cause of action and would contend that just with a view to save limitation some cause of action had been invented. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the role played by Partha Sarathy and also the evidence of DW-3 in particular and had pointed out to several portions thereof. The learned Counsel also had explained Exs. A-8, A-9, A-17, B-2, B-3, B-5, A-14, C-1 and also Exs. B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-20 in particular. The learned Counsel also commented about the inconsistent stands which are being taken relating to the custody of the documents and production of such documents at the appellate stage. While elaborating his submissions the Counsel also explained why the application for reception of additional evidence cannot be considered at this stage. The learned counsel also commented that Dw-3 had not even spoken to the terms of reconveyance and the contents thereof had not been proved. The mere existence of some reconveyance agreement may not be sufficient to get any relief whatsoever in relation to enforcement thereof. The terms are to be proved and unless the Court is satisfied in granting such relief otherwise by virtue of Ex. A-1 being the owner of the property R. K. Veni is bound to succeed. The learned Counsel in elaboration had explained the provisions of U. L. C. Act and the impact if any thereof on specific performance proceedings. The counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.